Incidental appendectomy: 18-year pathologic survey and cost effectiveness in the nonmanaged-care setting.

BACKGROUND: Incidental appendectomy (IA) remains a controversial issue. The role of IA in the nonmanaged-care setting has not been evaluated recently. This study evaluates the cost-benefit of IA based on current third-party reimbursements and reports the incidence of pathology from routine IA during an 18-year period. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review was performed for all patients who underwent open intestinal operations for nonappendiceal pathology by a single colon and rectal surgeon between 1988 and 2006. Patient records were reviewed for surgical indication, procedure, pathology reports, and complications. A cost-benefit analysis for IA versus laparoscopic appendectomy was performed using previously published epidemiologic data for risk of appendectomy. RESULTS: During this period, 341 patients (mean age 62.9 years) underwent IA during open intestinal operation. Malignancy was the indication for operation in 61.6%. Pathologic findings of clinical significance in the appendix were present in 2.6% of specimens. Combined reimbursements for laparoscopic appendectomy for nonruptured and ruptured appendicitis are 8,500.95 dollars and 15,870.37 dollars, respectively. For patients with a benign surgical indication, there was cost-benefit for IA during open operation for men younger than 55 years and women younger than 50 years of age. For patients with malignant disease, there was cost-benefit for men and women younger than 45 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: IA can be performed safely during open operation for other bowel pathology. Rate of clinically significant appendiceal pathology is low but not negligible. For patients with third-party payor status, IA can be more broadly performed during open gastrointestinal operation when no additional surgeon reimbursement is obtained.

Routine surgical pathology in general surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although pathological analysis provides the definitive diagnosis for most resection specimens, recent evidence suggests that such analysis may be omitted for certain routine samples. This was a retrospective analysis of the value of routine histopathological examination performed in daily general surgical practice. METHODS: All specimens from routine appendicectomies, cholecystectomies, haemorrhoidectomies and inguinal hernia repairs performed between 1993 and 2002 were included. The analysis included a comparison of histological and macroscopic diagnoses, review of preoperative and peroperative findings, and an evaluation of the consequences of routine histopathological assessment on patient management and costs. RESULTS: With the exception of hernia specimens, the rate of submission for routine pathological evaluation was 100 per cent. No hernia sac specimen from more than 2000 interventions revealed aberrant histological findings. Of 311 haemorrhoidectomy specimens three showed malignancy, all of which had a suspicious macroscopic appearance. Of 1465 appendices, only one (0.1 per cent) had a potentially relevant histological diagnosis that was not suspected macroscopically. Among 1523 cholecystectomy specimens, all adenomas (0.6 per cent) and carcinomas (0.4 per cent) were suspected macroscopically or developed in association with a known disease. CONCLUSION: The rarity of incidental histological findings relevant to patient management, especially in the absence of macroscopic abnormalities, suggests that routine histological examination of certain specimens may be omitted. A more elementary role for macroscopic examination of the specimen by the surgeon and the pathologist is proposed.